Now that the FCC has issued net neutrality rules, consumers and companies can …

Share this story

The Federal Communications Commission's new net neutrality rules are now almost a week old, and the fighting over them has just begun. Republicans vow they'll kill the FCC's move in Congress, calling it a blow to personal liberty and small government.

Meanwhile the reform outfit Free Press has dubbed the Commission's Order "Not Neutrality" and a "textbook example of industry capture of a federal agency." The group is particularly disappointed that the rules exempt wireless broadband from its unreasonable discrimination ban and is lining up supporters for a new battle to get stronger regulations.

And this is just the beginning. Even before full rules were published on Friday, there was a semi-major brouhaha over what the FCC Order meant when it mentioned the Android open operating system in its discussion about mobile broadband.

But amidst all the fervor over this decision, it occurred to us that, pending its effective date of release, anybody will be able to file a formal or informal net neutrality complaint with the FCC, based on its new rules. Here's what the Commission's Order says about this process, and how the FCC's complaint system currently works.

Informal complaints

There are two kinds of gripes you can make with the FCC: informal and formal. Informal complaints are much easier to submit. The Commission's Order says that end users and edge providers can file them via the agency's Consumer and Government Affairs informal complaint form, and the FCC will then look into the matter.

The problem right now is that the form doesn't have a specific section to express concerns about possible content blocking or unreasonable discrimination by ISPs. The FCC says its Consumer Division will soon "make available resources explaining these rules and facilitating the filing of informal complaints."

In the meantime, we're guessing that the adventurous will maneuver through the online section via the following path—from "Internet Service and VoIP" to "Billing, Service, Availability," and from there to the formatted online form. Or complainers will access the Commission's Quality of Service complaint form (PDF) and just print it and fill it out by hand.

Formal complaints

Under the Commission's new net neutrality rules, anybody can also file a formal complaint charging violation of some aspect of the Order, but unless you're a company, public interest group, or trade association, you probably don't want to go that route. Aside from the $200 filing fee, formal FCC complaints are like court hearings. They've got specific procedural, appearance, and docket filing rules. Lawyers usually get involved. The process is not for the faint of heart.

According to the Order, in stage one of a formal net neutrality grievance, the complainant must first inform the "defendant" ISP in writing that they are taking this step, describe the charges, and wait for the company to provide an answer, to which the complainant can file a reply.

Defendants must deliver their answer within 20 days of receiving the complaint. Replies must be filed within 10 days of receiving the broadband provider's response.

"In some cases, the facts might be uncontested," the Order notes, "and the proceeding can be completed based on the pleadings. In other cases, a thorough analysis of the challenged conduct might require further factual development and briefing."

Complainants should keep in mind that they bear the burden of proving some kind of violation the agency's rules, the FCC says. But the broadband provider "must answer each claim with particularity and furnish facts, supported by documentation or affidavit, demonstrating the reasonableness of the challenged practice. At that point, the complainant will have the opportunity to demonstrate that the practice is not reasonable. Should experience reveal the need to adjust the burden of proof in open Internet disputes, we will do so as appropriate."

Appropriate enforcement action?

How will the Commission decide these cases? The agency promises that in stage two it will draw from its engineering, legal, and economic staff, and request help from various relevant standard-setting groups. The FCC's administrative law judges may be brought into the process to preside over a hearing on the question.

"Further, in order to facilitate prompt decision-making, when possible we will resolve open Internet formal complaints at the bureau level, rather than the Commission level," the Order adds. "Commission level" means a five-commissioner vote on the complaint, which would be a very public (and very political) way of resolving the problem—probably the last way that the FCC wants to get these complaints resolved.

Finally, the FCC reserves the right to lodge a complaint on its own dime. "Should the Commission find that a broadband Internet provider is engaging in activity that violates the open Internet rules, we will take appropriate enforcement action, including the issuance of forfeitures," the enforcement section of the Order warns.

One caveat—if you file an informal net neutrality complaint with the FCC, but don't like the Commission's response, you can go the formal route—but only after waiting six months.

Share this story

Matthew Lasar
Matt writes for Ars Technica about media/technology history, intellectual property, the FCC, or the Internet in general. He teaches United States history and politics at the University of California at Santa Cruz. Emailmatthew.lasar@arstechnica.com//Twitter@matthewlasar

Republicans vow they'll kill the FCC's move in Congress, calling it a blow to personal liberty and small government.

Any republicans care to explain this position?

Seems the only liberties that are at steak from "traditional" NN rules are those of the corperations. The increase in government necessary to inforce NN seems to be pretty minimal. Especially when we look at the other, bigger areas of spending which they refuse to even think about cutting. (Defense Department, I am looking at you)

Before anyone complains about "Government over-regulation" please make sure you understand deep packet inspection, and what it means to an internet without some kind of regulation making ISP neutral in deciding what content is allowed, and how the data is prioritized. If you don't understand ALL of the words in the previous sentence, you are probably not qualified to comment on the situation.

Republicans vow they'll kill the FCC's move in Congress, calling it a blow to personal liberty and small government.

Any republicans care to explain this position?

Seems the only liberties that are at steak from "traditional" NN rules are those of the corperations. The increase in government necessary to inforce NN seems to be pretty minimal. Especially when we look at the other, bigger areas of spending which they refuse to even think about cutting. (Defense Department, I am looking at you)

Well, I certainly cannot speak for the GOP's point of view (I typically do not agree with them). Here is my take on that line.

The small government bit makes sense. Anytime the government regulates something, there is a lot of overhead that goes with it. Its my opinion that the government is already far too large. And being a constitutionist, I am for the least amount of regulation by the federal government as possible.

Things typically work themselves out in the end if left up to the market (with some exceptions of course).

The personal liberty bit typically goes down with larger government. Not always directly effecting people, but can effect them in some indirect way. Although in this case, this may not be true. I have not read the full document yet.

Republicans vow they'll kill the FCC's move in Congress, calling it a blow to personal liberty and small government.

Any republicans care to explain this position?

Seems the only liberties that are at steak from "traditional" NN rules are those of the corperations. The increase in government necessary to inforce NN seems to be pretty minimal. Especially when we look at the other, bigger areas of spending which they refuse to even think about cutting. (Defense Department, I am looking at you)

Well, I certainly cannot speak for the GOP's point of view (I typically do not agree with them). Here is my take on that line.

The small government bit makes sense. Anytime the government regulates something, there is a lot of overhead that goes with it. Its my opinion that the government is already far too large. And being a constitutionist, I am for the least amount of regulation by the federal government as possible.

Things typically work themselves out in the end if left up to the market (with some exceptions of course).

I agree that this is what the Republicans are speaking about, but the glaring issue that they tend to ignore is that there is no "free market" when it comes to wire-line ISPs -- they enjoy a government mandated monopoly on last mile access. The only two* ways to fix this are:

1) Line sharing -- which would allow for a market that's as pretty close as we could get to a free marketor2) Government intervention -- which will suppress the ability of the monopoly ISPs from exerting their will on their customers.

The problem is that the Republicans do not like either of these options: they don't like #1 because it goes against big business, and they don't like #2 because of their small government stance.

* Some people like to believe that there is a third option which is allow other companies to lay last-mile cable, but to me that's not a real option for several reasons.

Normally, I recoil like somebody who inadvertently grabbed a white-hot piece of steel right out of a roaring fire when I hear that Republicans want to do something -- I've been burned before: "fool me once... fool me twice," and all that jazz.

This time, however, I must agree with "The Party of NO[thing]." I can't believe I'm hearing myself say that. I know I'll live to regret this. I still have to say, "More power to your efforts to derail and invalidate this STUPID giveaway to internet vampires."

Check out the rates and service in Europe. Then wonder why "it can't happen here." Look no further than Comcast, et al. They get what they pay for (lobbyists and legislators on the take), so we NEVER get what we're paying for (a decent, affordable, fast ISP).

Before anyone complains about "Government over-regulation" please make sure you understand deep packet inspection, and what it means to an internet without some kind of regulation making ISP neutral in deciding what content is allowed, and how the data is prioritized. If you don't understand ALL of the words in the previous sentence, you are probably not qualified to comment on the situation.

On this note, and feel free to correct me as this is a genuine question, but isn't the backbone architecture of the internet, the big fat tubes that pass information along, pretty much neutral as to prioritizing traffic? It is my understanding that the 'last mile' carriers, the comcasts, AT&Ts and Verizons, are the one's who want to monopolize and prioritize the consumers connection with an otherwise blind backbone?

I'm not much for big government myself, but I sure as hell don't trust a private corporation to look out for my best intreasts.

Says the corporate villian: ...... there is a whole wide world out there, just look how fascinating it is. Here now, let me show you which windows you can use to peer out upon it.....

On this note, and feel free to correct me as this is a genuine question, but isn't the backbone architecture of the internet, the big fat tubes that pass information along, pretty much neutral as to prioritizing traffic? It is my understanding that the 'last mile' carriers, the comcasts, AT&Ts and Verizons, are the one's who want to monopolize and prioritize the consumers connection with an otherwise blind backbone?

Kind of. Some of the back bone owners are not themselves, ISP's. However, several backbone links are owned and maintained companies that are ISP's. The big boys in the backbone business are: UUNET, Level 3, Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, and Qwest.

Things typically work themselves out in the end if left up to the market (with some exceptions of course).

This is demonstrably untrue with monopolies, especially natural monopolies (such as the last-mile deployment of network access to residences). Natural monopolies never lead to competition in a free market. The issue of last mile communications infrastructure would be one of the exceptions you mention.

skicow wrote:

[ISPs] enjoy a government mandated monopoly on last mile access.

Er, maybe I'm missing something, but the last-mile monopoly is not government-mandated. It's a natural monopoly: anyone can (with proper permits, etc.) run wires to your house. It merely doesn't pay for more than one or two companies to do so.

Er, maybe I'm missing something, but the last-mile monopoly is not government-mandated. It's a natural monopoly: anyone can (with proper permits, etc.) run wires to your house. It merely doesn't pay for more than one or two companies to do so.

Before anyone complains about "Government over-regulation" please make sure you understand deep packet inspection, and what it means to an internet without some kind of regulation making ISP neutral in deciding what content is allowed, and how the data is prioritized. If you don't understand ALL of the words in the previous sentence, you are probably not qualified to comment on the situation.

Personally I would love to see a debate about regulating how DPI is used.

Normally I'm a libertarian who is all about local and personal autonomy as opposed to a big federal government. But I'm not an ideologue, and I see a case of necessity: If the government doesn't step in to enforce some measure of neutrality, companies will have power that's equivalent to a government agency. So I say it's better to have government control in this case, at least the US government still maintains the pretense of being a republic.

Oh that's rich. This coming from a political party that never met a deficit they did not love or a new government expansion without funding they couldn't mandate.

The 'reading between the lines' news in this statement is nothing but more GOP laissez faire/free market bullshit of the highest order.

Their "Personal liberty" = Corporations may do whatever the hell they like.

Their "small government" = No Regulation

This is not rocket science here, they do this all the time, every time, time and again.

At what point in the post mortem history of the dead horse will people finally concede that the objective of the GOP is to kill the fucking horse?

When was the last time the GOP did ANYTHING to benefit individual freedoms and society without it being a direct result of looking after the wealthy?

Could we leave the bullshit political hackery out of this? The Republican party, like Democrat party (and anyone else who wants to get elected) is political first, political second, political third, and ideological a distant fourth. Political pandering, grandstanding, and framing are non-partisan foibles. If you want to talk politics, at least talk the politics of the issue, and not build the issue into your own partisan (fantasy) narrative.

Oh that's rich. This coming from a political party that never met a deficit they did not love or a new government expansion without funding they couldn't mandate.

The 'reading between the lines' news in this statement is nothing but more GOP laissez faire/free market bullshit of the highest order.

Their "Personal liberty" = Corporations may do whatever the hell they like.

Their "small government" = No Regulation

This is not rocket science here, they do this all the time, every time, time and again.

At what point in the post mortem history of the dead horse will people finally concede that the objective of the GOP is to kill the fucking horse?

When was the last time the GOP did ANYTHING to benefit individual freedoms and society without it being a direct result of looking after the wealthy?

Could we leave the bullshit political hackery out of this? The Republican party, like Democrat party (and anyone else who wants to get elected) is political first, political second, political third, and ideological a distant fourth. Political pandering, grandstanding, and framing are non-partisan foibles. If you want to talk politics, at least talk the politics of the issue, and not build the issue into your own partisan (fantasy) narrative.

Agreed -- though Democrats like to call it the Democratic Party since they believe that some Republican's use it as an epithet.

Indeed; my understanding is that monopoly municipal franchise agreements were made illegal as of the 1995 Telecommunications Act. The franchise agreements can still exist, but all interested players must get the same terms from the municipality. The only monopoly stemming from this area should be a natural one, due to the initial cost of laying more wire.

Check out the rates and service in Europe. Then wonder why "it can't happen here." Look no further than Comcast, et al. They get what they pay for (lobbyists and legislators on the take), so we NEVER get what we're paying for (a decent, affordable, fast ISP).

Absolutely right. Comcast and the other cable cos plus the telcos and entertainment industry totally own the FCC and Congress. The millions they contribute to election campaigns and dirty money under the table guarantee them pretty much whatever they want.

"legislators on the take" - is there any other kind? You can't get elected and remain in office without dirty money.

Oh that's rich. This coming from a political party that never met a deficit they did not love or a new government expansion without funding they couldn't mandate.

The 'reading between the lines' news in this statement is nothing but more GOP laissez faire/free market bullshit of the highest order.

Their "Personal liberty" = Corporations may do whatever the hell they like.

Their "small government" = No Regulation

This is not rocket science here, they do this all the time, every time, time and again.

At what point in the post mortem history of the dead horse will people finally concede that the objective of the GOP is to kill the fucking horse?

When was the last time the GOP did ANYTHING to benefit individual freedoms and society without it being a direct result of looking after the wealthy?

Could we leave the bullshit political hackery out of this? The Republican party, like Democrat party (and anyone else who wants to get elected) is political first, political second, political third, and ideological a distant fourth. Political pandering, grandstanding, and framing are non-partisan foibles. If you want to talk politics, at least talk the politics of the issue, and not build the issue into your own partisan (fantasy) narrative.

You're absolutely right about that. Anyone who doesn't think the Democrats are also in corporate influence up to their necks would be wrong. Except that the "small government" and "government regulation is an assault on personal liberty" memes are mainly a Republican hypocrisy. There's no denying that.

I agree that this is what the Republicans are speaking about, but the glaring issue that they tend to ignore is that there is no "free market" when it comes to wire-line ISPs -- they enjoy a government mandated monopoly on last mile access. The only two* ways to fix this are:

I'm a big confused why people support net neutrality as an answer to the lack of broadband competition. Why wouldn't it just be better to address the real problem: lack of competition?

Oh that's rich. This coming from a political party that never met a deficit they did not love or a new government expansion without funding they couldn't mandate.

The 'reading between the lines' news in this statement is nothing but more GOP laissez faire/free market bullshit of the highest order.

Their "Personal liberty" = Corporations may do whatever the hell they like.

Their "small government" = No Regulation

This is not rocket science here, they do this all the time, every time, time and again.

At what point in the post mortem history of the dead horse will people finally concede that the objective of the GOP is to kill the fucking horse?

When was the last time the GOP did ANYTHING to benefit individual freedoms and society without it being a direct result of looking after the wealthy?

Could we leave the bullshit political hackery out of this? The Republican party, like Democrat party (and anyone else who wants to get elected) is political first, political second, political third, and ideological a distant fourth. Political pandering, grandstanding, and framing are non-partisan foibles. If you want to talk politics, at least talk the politics of the issue, and not build the issue into your own partisan (fantasy) narrative.

You're absolutely right about that. Anyone who doesn't think the Democrats are also in corporate influence up to their necks would be wrong. Except that the "small government" and "government regulation is an assault on personal liberty" memes are mainly a Republican hypocrisy. There's no denying that.

When in doubt, I admit I tend to vote republican. But I don't have any real loyalty to any party, sorry. The "small government" meme over simplifies my beliefs, just like any other stereotype. What I do believe is that transferring power to state and local governments would have the effect of making lobbying unprofitable, giving more power to the rest of us. Lobbying thousands of state, county, and city governments would simply bleed corporations dry. Meanwhile, whole regions would get laws and regulations that most of their citizens would find more acceptable than what the one size fits all federal government makes. People on the west coast and in the bible belt would be happier. Not to mention less likely to step on each other toes as they try to influence laws that Congress makes for the whole country. Yes legal inconsistency would be a bit of a problem, but would have it's benefits too: If Comcast, Verizon, or even Wall-mart had to split into smaller regional companies that would probably benefit us.

Thanks! But where do we complain about being sexually assaulted at the TSA checkpoint?

Cowsumers pay for access 'to the Internet'. It doesn't define how that access is granted in the marketing and sales. Also, Once access is provided, it says nothing about once beyond your attached ISP how any control (better or worse) can and will be maintained.

I am a consumer and I have worked for a large, incorporated network provider, and I can see both sides of the arguments. Both have their legitimate basis of stance. And if someone thinks there is a lot of money to be made in Internet access then they obviously haven't worked in that field.

From wikipedia:---Over the past ten years (to 2009), Comcast has achieved a financial record that is, according to one analyst, "not unimpressive". The book value of the company nearly doubled from $8.19 a share in 1999 to $15 a share in 2009. Revenues grew sixfold from 1999's $6 billion to almost $36 billion in 2009. Net profit margin rose from 4.2% in 1999 to 8.4% in 2009, with operating margins improving 31 percent and return on equity doubling to 6.7 percent in the same time span. Between 1999 and 2009, return on capital nearly tripled to 7 percent.[35]----

Oh that's rich. This coming from a political party that never met a deficit they did not love or a new government expansion without funding they couldn't mandate.

The 'reading between the lines' news in this statement is nothing but more GOP laissez faire/free market bullshit of the highest order.

Their "Personal liberty" = Corporations may do whatever the hell they like.

Their "small government" = No Regulation

This is not rocket science here, they do this all the time, every time, time and again.

At what point in the post mortem history of the dead horse will people finally concede that the objective of the GOP is to kill the fucking horse?

When was the last time the GOP did ANYTHING to benefit individual freedoms and society without it being a direct result of looking after the wealthy?

Could we leave the bullshit political hackery out of this? The Republican party, like Democrat party (and anyone else who wants to get elected) is political first, political second, political third, and ideological a distant fourth. Political pandering, grandstanding, and framing are non-partisan foibles. If you want to talk politics, at least talk the politics of the issue, and not build the issue into your own partisan (fantasy) narrative.

Sure we could leave the political hackery out of it, but you do realize that that is exactly what informs this debate.

It was the Republican Party that spoke up here, the Democratic Party did not; if they had, I'd have thrown mud at them too.

I was addressing the specific article with a specific quote from the GOP. If the Democratic Party had taken a position, I'd have commented on that pack of assholes as well.

That is the whole nut of the problem here. We are facing technical, regulatory, and capitalist issues and the only possible path for solutions has to pass through our Bullshit Political Hackery sausage factories; groups of wholly owned and paid for corporate whores whose only job is to represent the PEOPLE when instead, they take care of Corporations and the wealthy at the necessary expense of the PEOPLE.

We (WE being consumers of teleco products, teleco rate-payers, American Tax Payers) have paid for a first class communications infrastructure and been given the sloppy seconds, the table scraps, whats left, after the shareholders are paid off and the upper echelons of 'the white boys club' (CEO's & other management leeches) have taken all that there is to take.

This discussion is like fighting over where to put the deck chairs after we've hit the Iceberg.

I'm a big confused why people support net neutrality as an answer to the lack of broadband competition. Why wouldn't it just be better to address the real problem: lack of competition?

...and your solution to the lack of competition is? The reason NN has been pursued is because the solution that creates *real* competition is politically untenable: splitting up all the last-mile carriers into ISP / content services, and transport services. The transport services companies get a state-sanctioned monopoly -- with attendant tough regulation on pricing and delivery of services -- and the ISPs get to offer services over those last-mile wires. Can you think of something more politically feasible that significantly increases competition?

Freeman wrote:

Sure we could leave the political hackery out of it, but you do realize that that is exactly what informs this debate.

It was the Republican Party that spoke up here, the Democratic Party did not; if they had, I'd have thrown mud at them too.

I was addressing the specific article with a specific quote from the GOP. If the Democratic Party had taken a position, I'd have commented on that pack of assholes as well.

That is the whole nut of the problem here. We are facing technical, regulatory, and capitalist issues and the only possible path for solutions has to pass through our Bullshit Political Hackery sausage factories; groups of wholly owned and paid for corporate whores whose only job is to represent the PEOPLE when instead, they take care of Corporations and the wealthy at the necessary expense of the PEOPLE.

We (WE being consumers of teleco products, teleco rate-payers, American Tax Payers) have paid for a first class communications infrastructure and been given the sloppy seconds, the table scraps, whats left, after the shareholders are paid off and the upper echelons of 'the white boys club' (CEO's & other management leeches) have taken all that there is to take.

This discussion is like fighting over where to put the deck chairs after we've hit the Iceberg.

We're fucked.

...so your response to this issue, instead of engaging in any analysis of the issue at hand, is to flame the Republican party? Political hackery does not inform this debate; it distorts this debate. That is its goal. By repaying their political hackery in kind, you are helping them to distort the debate.

Something I don't understand is why isn't Facebook or Youtube (which is Google I suppose) or some other large content provider (Netflix) freaking out about NetNeutrality and doing their own little PSAs?

The average person has no idea that NN exists and they don't even realize that were ISPs to start charging for "premium bit traffic" that they could end up paying an extra $5 a month for their Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, Pandora, Skype, etc...?

I guess I sort of expected Skype to make mention of it, or for Facebook to have a "support NN" ad here or there or something...?

Something I don't understand is why isn't Facebook or Youtube (which is Google I suppose) or some other large content provider (Netflix) freaking out about NetNeutrality and doing their own little PSAs?

The average person has no idea that NN exists and they don't even realize that were ISPs to start charging for "premium bit traffic" that they could end up paying an extra $5 a month for their Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, Pandora, Skype, etc...?

I guess I sort of expected Skype to make mention of it, or for Facebook to have a "support NN" ad here or there or something...?

They're probably worried that it might do more harm then good. Between confused grandparents, the attention span of the general public, brats writing to congress demanding free movies & etc, it may help the other side. I call me a pessimist, but I could see how things might go very wrong. Like handing all our nukes over to Iran for safe disposal wrong.

...Some of the back bone owners are not themselves, ISP's. However, several backbone links are owned and maintained companies that are ISP's. The big boys in the backbone business are: UUNET, Level 3, Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, and Qwest.

I just wanted to point out from my 10 years of telco experience (at Level 3) that of this list, only Level 3 and Sprint do not have a significant consumer / retail internet access business. All the others are both backbone (wholesale) ISPs that also offer business and *retail* internet access. They may separate the divisions but ultimately they are the same company and it seems increasingly have greater interest in discriminating traffic, blocking, throttling, etc. A pure backbone-only ISP would have no interest in these kind of shenanigans as it costs money to implement and they want to run as high performance of a core internet service at the lowest cost to deliver as possible.